Edo,the (free-to-download) book Ismail gave you a link to is highly reccomendable for everyone who wants to know more about Socialist Albania.It's actually written by (from what i know) an anti-communist but gives a very good basic overview of the country and history and politics (etc.) thereof.

Edo,the (free-to-download) book Ismail gave you a link to is highly reccomendable for everyone who wants to know more about Socialist Albania.

Hey, Loz, how are you? I started this thread to learn of three major accomplishments by socialist Albania, nothing else. So far we've been doing some major ping-pong about irrelevant issues such as literacy in Albania (read further before jumping on this statement). I'm still waiting for three valid accomplishments.

Let me define an accomplishment: it is something that other countries haven't succeeded in doing or have done it later than someone, that constitutes it as an achievement. Literacy jumped up all over Europe in the 20th century, therefore high literacy is a civilisation's accomplishment, not nation's, let alone Albania's. To give another example of an accomplishment: achieving manned spaceflight is an accomplishment since not many other nations mastered that skill or have done it later on. Also, achieving moon landing is an accomplishment.

But if you feel that the above mentioned civilisation's achievement is at the same time Albania's accomplishment, I will no longer argue with you guys.And I will strongly disagree that one of ALbania's accomplishments is in producing marxist-leninst literature and contributing to the marxist-leninist thought (just trying to counteract any claims of this nature ahead of time).

Using that logic no country that isn't a superpower had any accomplishments. If being able to quickly eradicate illiteracy, marshlands, blood feuds, extreme inequality for women, etc. and to fairly quickly usher in things like basic industry, electricity, health care and education (plus being self-sufficient in things like grain) aren't accomplishments compared to earlier governments then I don't know what to tell you, except that I'm confident most everyone would disagree with your definition.

Also Ramadan Marmalluku is an Albanian name as well, does that mean I shouldn't trust him? Or are we only allowed to trust Yugoslav functionaries (of which he was one) as sources? Discounting Albanian sources (or even Albanian writers) is not only stupid but quasi-racist.

I guess if you want an "accomplishment" by your definition, Albania had the world's most egalitarian wage structure in which the ratio was 1:2 or 1:1.5, but you'll probably find something to attack in that anyway.

Britain had tons of accomplishments, achieved via colonizing half the world. The USA had tons of accomplishments via imperialism. Albania engaged in neither and had only gotten its independence in 1912 in circumstances which were more than unfavorable.

You clearly made the thread to attack Albania and Albanians. You deny it all you want, but it's fairly obvious to anyone who looks at the sarcastic tone of your first post.

Using that logic no country that isn't a superpower had any accomplishments.

As with my earlier suggestion to reach a consensus on a definition to finally start discussing the same thing and you rejected it as "no communist talks that way", we're obviously not coming any further with this one either. So I suggest we drop it. I will for sure.

Ismail wrote:

If being able to quickly eradicate illiteracy,

Didn't you say it took Albania almost 100 years to make a great leap in literacy? You mentioned 1912 as a reference point - that is hardly considered quick as 3 generations of people lived inbetween

Comrade, there's a saying that in the kingdom of the blind a one-eyed person is a king.

Ismail wrote:

Or are we only allowed to trust Yugoslav functionaries (of which he was one) as sources?

Please, show me my post where I quoted one Yugoslav source for anything that I said about ALbania. Please, do read at least once this thread from the beginning. THere's a link to a source which has got nothing to do with any Yugoslav government. I made a cynical remark (that I admit) that you will probably dismiss it as an example of vicious Yugoslav hate-propaganda. If you can't trust the source I put there, we have nothing more to discuss, sorry.

Ismail wrote:

ou clearly made the thread to attack Albania and Albanians. You deny it all you want, but it's fairly obvious to anyone who looks at the sarcastic tone of your first post.

Comrade, that is not true. You joined this thread after it was already started. And I started it because Loz and I were discussing the USSR economy vs. Yugoslav economy and we somehow started to discuss Albania. That's why I decided to open the thread. If that is not enough for you, kindly refer to Loz for more explanations. But beware, he's coming from Croatia which once used to be in SFRY (*gaaaaa*) To Loz: you know I'm kidding with gaaaaaa

If my tone is sarcastic, then i have the right to label your rabid tries to find excuses for Albania really pathetic.

Didn't you say it took Albania almost 100 years to make a great leap in literacy? You mentioned 1912 as a reference point - that is hardly considered quick as 3 generations of people lived inbetween

I used 1912 as a starting point, yes. That's when Albania went independent. In 1912 illiteracy was terrible. In 1939 illiteracy was terrible. In 1944 illiteracy was terrible. Then the communists came to power. In 1950 illiteracy was halved. By 1970 it was basically done away with.

So uh, no, it took like 5 years to make a significant leap, and about 20 to do away with it for all practical purposes.

Quote:

If my tone is sarcastic, then i have the right to label your rabid tries to find excuses for Albania really pathetic.

What exactly do hoxhaists like about Albania that makes them consider it a model? AFAIK it developed from shitholeness like the warpac states did, through foreign aid, usually from the soviets.

Soviet (and later Chinese) aid was important, but it wasn't vital. The eradication of illiteracy for example didn't really involve Soviet aid. Also, unlike other Warsaw Pact states, Albania geared its industry towards being as self-sufficient as possible rather than being based on exporting what the Soviets wanted them to export.

Albania being a model consists in its principled defense of Marxism-Leninism and in its refusal to convert its economy into state-capitalism à la the rest of the Warsaw Pact. It was, as Hoxha himself noted, the last socialist country on earth.

Excuses for what? Actually developing a modernized economy? Draining swamplands? Having people read?

Now, now... calm down. If one assumes that as time goes by things usually develop and progress, correct? So, how come Albania is still nowadays being considered backward as this (non-Yugoslav) article from mid-July 2011 claims http://bit.ly/rE9r3D? Here's a vicious quote from that article, must've been influenced by some hard-core Yugoslav"So, historically, USA has helped and continues to help Albanians and Albania with the will to be converted from a backward state in a western legal state, where the democratic principles and the human rights will not be violated anymore." To explain what this means: by saying "historically, USA has helped and continues to help Albanians.... from a backward state..." the article states that Albania has been bakcward all along and that USA has been helping it in the past and currently as well.

Or, to quote this article http://bit.ly/sQoirj"The report pointed to areas such as the work of parliament, elections, judiciary, anti-corruption policy, property rights and improving the living conditions of the Roma. "Explanation: so, if we Yugoslavs are so racist and nationalist, how does this no-improved-conditions-for-the-Roma-people look on Albanians?

"The EC did note that action was taken to combat organised crime, improve the treatment of detainees, and guarantee children's rights. " Explanation: so, if something was done to guarantee children's rights, imagine what was happening 30 years ago on that subject, let alone 50 or more!

How does albania's M-Lism differ from, say, the GDR's, other than a having different clique preference in the USSR (I.e. being 'anti-revisionist')? It seems like Hoxhaism is nothing more than the post-stalin 'old' M-Lism, which boils down to just an unusual opinion on the stalinist succession crisis.

Also, would you say Albania developed along lines that let it 'skip' the capitalist stage because of revolution in more advanced countries? Or did it build itself up like the Stalin-era USSR, 'socialism in one country'?

I guess you forgot that Albania's economy collapsed in 1991. The government of Sali Berisha is very, very pro-USA and basically demonizes the socialist period at every opportunity.

Also children's rights were quite bad after 1991, yes. Many schools have since closed up and mass organizations for the youth no longer exist.

Quote:

the article states that Albania has been bakcward all along and that USA has been helping it in the past and currently as well.

That's because US President Wilson forced the other Great Powers to not divide Albania amongst themselves after World War I. Also in the 1920's and 30's there was an American school in the capital. In 1946 the USA cut off all diplomatic relations with Albania.

Quote:

Explanation: so, if we Yugoslavs are so racist and nationalist, how does this no-improved-conditions-for-the-Roma-people look on Albanians?

Pretty bad. Sure does suck that socialism was replaced with petty nationalism with the rise of capitalism.

Anyway, why are you talking so much about modern-day Albania? This is about socialist Albania, not corrupt and impoverished modern-day Albania.

Conscript wrote:

How does albania's M-Lism differ from, say, the GDR's, other than a having different clique preference in the USSR (I.e. being 'anti-revisionist')?

The GDR had so-called "consumer socialism" and followed the post-Stalin USSR's revisionist foreign and economic policies. The Albanians never proclaimed themselves as having a "unique" brand of socialism. They just called themselves Marxist-Leninists. As you said they are "old MLists."

Quote:

Also, would you say Albania developed along lines that let it 'skip' the capitalist stage because of revolution in more advanced countries? Or did it build itself up like the Stalin-era USSR, 'socialism in one country'?

About 90% of industry was in the hands of the socialist sector of the economy by 1947. There was not much of a "capitalist" stage. In 1960 the government proclaimed that it had constructed the basis for socialist construction to be made possible.

Foreign and economic policies are decisions based on pragmatism and strategy. They have nothing to do with Marxism. Having a stupid foreign policy does not make you a non-Marxist, it makes you a stupid Marxist.

Can you explain how Albania was more socialist than the GDR without using the word "revisionism"?

Also how does this thread have any other meaning than "let's pick on Albania"?

Foreign and economic policies are decisions based on pragmatism and strategy. They have nothing to do with Marxism. Having a stupid foreign policy does not make you a non-Marxist, it makes you a stupid Marxist.

How can a party claim to be Marxist while directly giving support to enemies of the people,like China did in the case of Chile where it supported Pinochet etc?

Quote:

For China the Spain of Franco, the Chile of Pinochet, or the Rhodesia of Ian Smith are friends, while the 'Soviets are the most dangerous, because they pose as Marxist-Leninists'. This is not a principled stand. The struggle of China against the Soviets is not being waged on the ideological platform to unmask their social-imperialist policy on this basis. No, China is not doing this properly at all. Why is it not doing this? Because its policy is not based on the Marxist-Leninist theory. China has joined in the political dance of the bourgeoisie, adopted a pragmatic policy... China seeks the friendship of ruling cliques in order 'to approach the peoples', instead of winning the hearts of the peoples by convincing them that it fully supports their cause.

Can you explain how Albania was more socialist than the GDR without using the word "revisionism"?

Why would I want to avoid using the word? Revisionism leads to the restoration of capitalism. Albania achieved more or less complete collectivization, industrial targets weren't based on profit, there was no "consumer socialism," the economy of Albania was not bound up with that of the USSR, and wages were the most egalitarian in the world. There was also no "decentralization" of enterprises à la Khrushchev and Brezhnev, which gave power to managers and strove to make enterprises operate on the basis of commodity relations with other enterprises, among other things.

Mabool wrote:

Foreign and economic policies are decisions based on pragmatism and strategy. They have nothing to do with Marxism.

This was indeed the line taken by Gorbachev, who argued that Marxism-Leninism must be "creatively" applied in a way that just so happened to deprive it of its revolutionary content. This was also the line of Brezhnev. And Khrushchev. And Bukharin. And Kautsky. And Bernstein.

Tell me how "peaceful coexistence" can be reconciled with Lenin and Stalin's noting that imperialist war is unavoidable so long as capitalism exists as a power. Explain how countries like Guinea, Guyana and India were valiantly engaging in "non-capitalist development" as the Soviets claimed.

A "welfare state" is not the definition of socialism. If the only way that Albania was more socialist than the GDR is because of a better "welfare state" than I have reason to believe neither was socialist.